Rather with possible letter forger.
What’s the frequency, Fidel?
Cox & Forkum: Down From The Mountain An excellent wrap-up of the bloggers versus Dan Rather and the fake memos. Normally I would downplay this sort of bloggerdom victory since far too much time is spent gloating (blogloating) rather than going after the next big story. But I think a point needs to be made that has yet to be made. And that is: Where was the mainstream media? Why did the bloggers have to do all the due diligence?
Also the fact that Dan Rather, apparently “punked” by someone, got so defensive makes it worth milking. It is a great hoot.
link via C. Coulter
What if the bloggers were told that the documents were forgeries by the actual forger, and the bloggers were all ready to pounce when the trap was sprung? See the book “Bush’s Brain” for examples of similar dirty tricks once used by certain players in the current drama …
Um, not really. It looks more and more likely that these documents are not fakes, and it’s interesting that as usual the Far-right blogs are vaporing on while the left is ignored by the mainstream. Please see the following for the best summation:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_dneiwert_archive.html#109503760944065135
Interesting article, John. The blogosphere is evolving to become a hive-brain of sorts.
———————————–
Oh, Anonymously and Counterpoint, every time I finally decide that I’m through with Bush and the Iraq debacle and the miserable economy, nutballs like yourself come out of the woodwork and remind me why I just can’t do it.
Do you anti-Bush wingnuts realize how much you hurt your own cause? No one wants to be associated with people who cannot even be honest with themselves. In sports, there is concept known as sportsmanship; in social debate, it is known as being honest with oneself. Think about it.
Thanks, everyone, for the links. It was some interesting reading – especially regarding all the “experts” who have made judgements without examining the originals. The court of public opinion has different rules of evidence than a court of law. 🙁
I’m cynical enough to think Gregor is on to something, with regards to who would benefit most from circulating forgeries – if any of these documents are fake. 🙂
Well Anonymous, everytime I see substance-less ad hominem attacks directed at me, I think, I’m correct, and those who disagree with me have nothing. If you’re going to call people names, you better be ready to support your position with an argument. Otherwise, you’re nothing more than a jerk and a troll.
Judging from your post, “honesty” is nothing more than calling people names and ignoring evidence that runs contrary to what you believe. That’s a strange definition of “honesty.”
And if reading what you consider the writing of “nutballs” on a blog makes you do what you don’t want to do, you’ve got big problems. Really. Why would you go back to supporting what you believe to be a “debacle” or “miserable” based on what I or Counterpoint has to say? That’s just bizarre.
Seriously, do you have to approve of everyone that supports every issue that you advocate? You think there are no right-wing “nutballs”? Either you put yourself in a completely untenable position by claiming that you only associate with people that are “honest with themselves”, or you’re clueless.
Tell us all how “honest with [himself]” Bush is next time he tells us how well Iraq is going. Think about it.
CBS has still not explained how Staudt wrote the memo on 18 Aug 1973 when he retired 18 months earlier on 1 Mar 1972. Furthermore, there is the question of the originals. I mean the real originals with the ink signature not the ones CBS got their hands on. If they are actual National Guard memos, where are the original documents so that we can verify the authenticity?
Then of course there is the PO Box return address that the National Guard never used. And let’s not get into the questioning that CBS used to get information. “Have you ever seen or heard of a memo that suspended Bush for failing to appear for a physical?’
While there is probably truth to the claim that Bush was a crappy National Guardsman, it is also clear that CBS engineered this story. The went digging for this story and found “facts” to make it stick. Except, their facts don’t stick.
Well, Anonymously, I don’t care about the Swiftboats –so what if Kerry faked a purple heart to get out of Vietnam ASAP … who in their right mind didn’t want to get the heil out of there. I also don’t care very much about Bush + the guard.
Kerry says he’ll get us out of Iraq in 5 years? That’s the same as Bush. I’d vote for Kerry in a heatbeat if he said he’d pull us out of Iraq on January 20, 2005 — but he’s not saying that.
If you didn’t see this comment on the selectric typo –
Rather regularly profiles a deceased soldier with the underlying message that the soldier died in vain. See:
http://nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/morse200409150552.as
“OK, we confess that we sent the fake memo to Dan Rather”
signed Hillary and Teddy
(last names witheld at author’s request)
As a neighbor to the north of the U.S.A. I see things from a different historical perspective. In Canada we have never had a Prime Minister who was a war hero. We have never had a George Washington or even a General Officer serve as P. M. Being a military hero has never been a valuable coin in Canadian politics.
The hero debate between the Kerry and Bush electioneers would never occur here. The questions raised about Kerry’s war medals and Bush’s service record would not have “legs” in Canadian politics.
I am not going to try to define what this all means but I do think that it is a defining difference in our national cultures.
Having given that as context for my opinion, I find Dan Rather’s reporting seems reckless and high risk. He has put himself out on a limb and now seems to be busily cutting it off with his recent remarks. All because of this important touch stone in American politics.
I do think it means that you have to define very carefully the word “hero”. Whoever writes the definition of that word has tremendous infleunce in American political life.
“And that is: Where was the mainstream media? Why did the bloggers have to do all the due diligence?”
1) They only race with themselves, unless it’s really necessary.
2) Nitpick: They (bloggers) didn’t have to, it’s the strength (and weakness) of blogging that high dramatic interest leads to large numbers of (different) comments.
Why don’t you start discussions on topics like that? What are the social consequences of nearly infinite communication?
URL email: “-“
“–“
What if the memos are so fake that they are real? Like obviously fake boobs that are so fake they have to be real – you know what I mean? They are sooo cartooney bogus that they are real.